B. Prakash Rao, J.

This appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed at the instance of an unsuccessful petitioner, aggrieved against the orders dismissing a writ filed by him as per orders in W P No. 22002 of 2005 dated 25th October 2005.

Heard Sri B.V.S.Sivarama Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned Standing Counsel for Wakf Board, appearing for respondents.

In brief, the facts giving rise to these proceedings are that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner claims to be a mutavalli of an institution consisting of a mosque in Lalapet area of Guntur town, and sought for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Mandamus inter-alia assailing the correctness of the twin proceedings dated 9.9.2005 passed by the first respondent viz., The Chief Executive Officer of the Board and consequential orders dated 15.9.2005 passed by the third respondent/Enquiry Officer appointed by the Board. The proceedings dated 9.9.2005 pertain to placing the petitioner under suspension, whereas, the later proceedings dated 15.9.2005 is a show cause notice issued by the enquiry officer calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation in respect of the allegations made therein.

The case of the petitioner is to the effect that having regard to the powers conferred under Section 64 (5) and 64 (3) of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short the Act, 1995), the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and even the alleged show cause notice is bereft of any valid material or basis to warrant any such proposed action. The case of the petitioner is that since the impugned orders dated 9.9.2005 are passed by the Chief Executive Officer, who is not competent nor conferred with any powers under the above provisions of the Act and therefore the same is totally without jurisdiction. Admittedly, the impugned orders not being initiated and having any inception from the competent authority viz., the Board, the same would not hold good in law. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ in W P No. 12753 of 2005 challenging the orders wherein he was placed under suspension and an enquiry was directed to be conducted, and this Court as per the orders dated 17.7.2005 allowed the said writ petition on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer of the Board is not competent to initiate any proceedings or place the mutawalli under suspension. However, in appeal at the instance of the Board in W A No. 1377 of 2005, the Division Bench of this Court has varied with the order of the learned Single Judge holding that there is nothing in the impugned order, which would suggest that the order had been passed on the instructions of the second respondent and therefore the competent authority can always pass such order after complying with the provisions of law. Thereafter, the present impugned proceedings have been issued, hence the challenge.

Contesting the case of the petitioner on both the grounds, there is denial on the part of the Board and asserting that there is due compliance of the necessary requirement, since the Special Officer has approved the entire proceedings and therefore there is nothing illegal nor there is want of jurisdiction. Further, having regard to the nature of seriousness of the allegations, the order of suspension is perfectly sustainable and enquiry is rightly initiated.

Considering all these and other submissions made from both the sides, the learned Single Judge did not find favour with the appellant’s contention and dismissed the writ petition at the admission state itself, interalia holding that having regard to the earlier orders passed in W A No. 1377 of 2005 and the file which is produced before the learned Single Judge which contains the note to the effect that on 11.8.2005 a proposal was made proposing to place him under suspension under Section 64 (5) of the Act and the same was endorsed by the first respondent on the said proposal as approved and therefore in vie